1 jones done

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALVOLUME 31, NUMBER 3, 2014

RESPONDING TO SCHOOL FINANCE CHALLENGES: A SURVEY OF SCHOOL

SUPERINTENDENTS IN TEXAS

Don JonesMarie-Anne Mundy

Texas A&M University - KingsvilleCarolina “Carol” G. Perez

Kingsville Independent School District

ABSTRACT

Within the last decade, school districts in the United States and specifically in Texas have encountered major reductions in state school funding. In an effort to meet the demands of the No Child Left Behind regulations, state high stakes testing and maintenance and operations of school districts, superintendents have had to make ends meet with less funding. This non-experimental descriptive-survey research study examined how school superintendents in the state of Texas have grappled with the school finance budget cuts. The results of the study indicated that school district superintendents in Texas employed a variety of cost cutting measures to meet the financial demands of their school districts. The larger schools appeared more apt to eliminate administrative positions while the smaller schools were more prone to eliminate teaching positions. All superintendents increased the Student/Teacher Ratios. The cost cutting strategies that superintendents believed were most effective in meeting the financial demands of operating their districts and would thereby sustain the school district in subsequent years were Professional Positions (6100) and Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100) with Student/Teacher Ratio (6100) as the third most effective cost cutting strategy.

Introduction

he Education Commission of the States (1999) states that “Over the years, state policymakers have struggled with the question of how much should be spent per student for T

4

5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

education, or "what does an adequate education cost?" However, a clear definition on what constitutes an adequate or "core" education has been elusive. Furthermore, current education reforms and court decisions have increased the need for a more realistic procedure for determining the actual cost of a core education.

The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has called for higher academic standards and a focus on student achievement which has shifted the idea of “adequacy” from providing basic instructional resources such as teacher/student ratio and instructional materials and resources to identifying what resources are essential for students to reach their optimal academic potential. In response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the state of Texas has also called for mandates to ensure that students reach the academic mandates set forth by the NCLB. However, this has presented school districts in Texas with mandates that have imposed significant implementation costs which include additional staff, instructional resources and often new professional learning opportunities for staff and teachers.

In 2002, the Texas Association for School Administrators (TASA) and The Associations for School Boards (TASB) compiled a joint report known as the Report on District Mandates. Again in 2007 they updated their report and titled it Report on School District Mandates: Cost drivers in public education. It reported that the factors that have contributed to the rising cost of education in Texas are State mandates and the impact of inflation. Furthermore, the single largest cost factor was found to be staff salaries. Other cost demands include the growth in student enrollment, higher costs of utilities, fuel, and insurance. Still other increased costs are the result of the new State curriculum expectations such as the college readiness standards, end-of-course exams, the fourth year of mathematics and science and the Recommended High School Program (TASA & TASB, 2010).

The Education Trust (2006) concluded that states must take a greater share of education funding and provide additional funding to

Don Jones, Marie Anne-Mundy, & Carolina G. Perez 6

districts with the biggest challenges. It presented several admonitions to states to close the school district’s funding gaps. (1) Reduce the reliance on local property tax since wealth and property values are so unequally distributed. Utilizing local taxes as the primary source for schools essentially provides wealthier communities the advantage in proving greater educational opportunities. (2) It is counterproductive for states’ to profess a commitment to close the achievement gaps and to rely on local school district communities to fund education. This ideology supports privilege, intensifies inequality, and is archaic in the world where “all” students are expected to meet State academic standards consistently. (3) Additional State funds should be provided to school districts with the most need; thus, targeting the education of low income children. Children’s educational opportunities should not be limited by their neighborhoods’ demographics. “Aligning state education funding policies with goals would mark necessary, but not sufficient, progress toward equality of educational opportunity” (The Education Trust, 2006, p. 9).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to survey school district superintendents in the state of Texas to gather information about how they have dealt with the current school finance issue to balance their district budgets for the current school year. The study will inform stakeholders how the current State funding cuts have impacted the educational budgets of their school districts. In addition, the results and recommendations of this study may be of interest to policy makers and legislators.

Background, Context and Theoretical Framework

School finance is generally described in relation to three values which include: (1) adequacy, (2) equity and (3) capacity. “Policy makers share a constitutional responsibility to ensure that


sufficient resources are available to meet the educational expectations of the state, that local school districts with varying levels of property wealth have a similar ability to access this revenue, and that school districts have enough remaining capacity to meet increasing cost pressures and to provide for meaningful levels of local supplementation” (Moak & Associates, 2008, p. 4). Furthermore, Texas lags behind other states in pupil spending (The Education Trust, 2006). Even though the state of Texas has increased academic and curriculum requirements for public school students, its allocated funding has not kept pace with the inflation of the current and past several years. Texas developed formula modifications to improve the equity of the school finance formulas. However, the school finance system has not used those formulas in its actual operation, which has left some school districts with significantly less dollars to spend per pupil enrolled. Moreover, school districts have limited leverage to increase revenue by raising allowable tax rates (Moak & Associates, 2008).

The portion of education funding that states and local governments provide has changed considerably over time. Traditionally, the elementary and secondary education levels had been funded primarily by local governments and states only played a supporting contribution. Currently, states are required to take a greater role in education funding which is a trend that began in the 1970’s when state funding first overtook education spending by local governments (New America Foundation, 2011). The three levels of government in the United States which include federal, state, and local contribute to the education funding. States usually provide approximately less than half of all of the elementary and secondary educational funding. The local governments commonly contribute to about 44% of the total, and the federal government funds about10% of all direct educational expenditures (New America Foundation, 2011).

State Funding

States mainly use income and sales taxes to fund elementary


and secondary education. The State legislatures have developed the level or tiers of distribution of funding by following certain guidelines contingent on the state expenditures (New America Foundation, 2011). States must design school funding formulas to determine its education funding requirements. States strive to give all students a good education; however, funding formulas often come under debate (Center for Public Education, 2008). The two terms that are generally utilized to delineate school funding are adequacy and equity. Adequacy is not about providing a set amount of money rather it is about the number of dollars that are needed to fund students’ needs in order for them to be successful in their academic achievement (Center for Public Education, 2008). On the other hand, equity means that school districts should have equal access to comparable revenue per student at similar levels of tax effort (CITS, 2004). Furthermore, the Center for Public Education (2008) defines equity as “the process of distributing a set amount of dollars evenly among students” (Center for Public Education, 2008, p. 3).

State funding for elementary and secondary education is typically distributed by formula. Many states utilize funding formulas that allocate funding per pupils in a school district. Some formulas are weighted based on student demographics which may include the number of students with disabilities, the number of students with low socio-economic background, or the number of students classified as English Language Learners. The allocation of funding for these students may differ considerably depending on the funding formula (New America Foundation, 2011).

In Texas, the school finance system is known as the Foundation School Program (FSP) which requires for property rich school districts to render some of their local property taxes to the state to be redistributed to lower socio-economic school districts (Benson & Marks, 2005). The rendering of local school districts funds and redistribution is also known as the Robin Hood law (Cook, 2004). The term to describe property rich districts is Chapter 41. School Districts identified as Chapter 31, as per their Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA), must redirect some of their


property tax dollars to the state to support Chapter 42 school districts which are considered property poor districts as per their WADA (TEC, 2007). However, Walter and Sweetland (2003) state that the redistribution of funds at the state level between property rich and poor districts raised a concern of equity in how these funds are accessed by the school districts.

Litigations in School Funding

It is important to note that in the majority of the 50 states litigations have arisen, alleging educational funding disparities. The school funding litigations were mainly concentrated on education equity. These cases questioned the level of per-pupil funding in the states. However, the 1980’s litigations deferred and were characterized as focusing on education adequacy. Still these court cases sought funding allocations required to ensure that every student received an adequate education (Ujifusa, 2013).

From 1989 to 2010, plaintiffs have won 26 education adequacy litigations cases. There are still numerous cases pending in courts across the nation (New America Foundation, 2011).

In the landmark case, Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled that education is not a fundamental right under the federal constitution. It also held that wealth is not a questionable classification. This 5-4 ruling held that the state of Texas did not have to justify the higher quality of education for wealthier districts that might derive from their collected local property taxes (Ujifusa, 2013).

A combined case, Edgewood Independent School District v. Williams, was originally filed in December 2011. Approximately 600 school districts representing three-quarters of the state's school districts and responsible for educating 5 million-plus public school students joined the lawsuit. The school districts claimed that financial support provided by the Texas Legislature was inadequate and unfairly distributed. This case was filed after lawmakers voted in 2011 to cut public school funding by $5.4 billion.


In addition, the Court declared the school finance system in Texas to be unconstitutional by not providing low-wealth school districts the option in setting their tax rates. The Court noted that school districts such as those represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) have been forced to tax at the maximum rate because of the increased unfunded mandates. Moreover, the Court ruled in favor of the other school district plaintiffs' claims as well, on the grounds of equity, adequacy and meaningful discretion (MALDEF, 2013).

On April 16, 2012, The Equity Center reported that more than 400 school districts in Texas are being represented by The Fairness Coalition to file a school finance lawsuit against the state. The lawsuit against the State of Texas focuses on a school funding system that is unfair, inefficient and unconstitutional (The Equity Center, 2012).

It is noted that disparities in education funding in Texas have reached levels that have not been evident for the last 20 years. Low socioeconomic students and English Language Learners have been affected the most. The lawsuit, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Funding is the third in recent months to challenge the constitutionality of Texas' school finance system (Alexander, 2011). This case is being led by Edgewood schools that have an established history of winning lawsuits against the state’s public school funding formulas (MALDEF, 2013). The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund won the pivotal court case against the State of Texas regarding inadequate school funding for low socioeconomic and English Language Learner (ELL) children. The ruling stated that “the Texas public school finance system is arbitrary, inequitable and inadequate under the Texas Constitution and [...] low-wealth school districts lack local control over their tax rates,” reported MALDEF in a media statement. Judge John K. Dietz of Travis County District Court made this ruling after more than three months of testimony. “The State has left many Texas children behind by blatantly defying its constitutional duty to fully support their education,” said David Hinojosa, Southwest Regional

http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/tx_school_funding/




Counsel for MALDEF, who delivered the closing arguments on behalf of its clients—schools and plaintiffs. “Every Texas child should have the opportunity to go to college and this lawsuit will ensure that opportunity.” MALDEF filed the claim against the State of Texas because the budget cuts for schools around the state were considered to be uneven. Low wealth districts had as much as a $1,000 difference per pupil as compared to high wealth school districts. This occurred in spite of the fact that Texas residents were still paying high rates in school taxes across the state (MALDEF, 2013).

Methodology

This non-experimental descriptive-survey research study explored the strategies superintendents used to balance their school district budgets during the 2011-2012 school year through the use of a survey/questionnaire. Gall, Gall, and Borg state that “this type of research (sometimes called survey research) has yielded much valuable knowledge about opinions, attitudes, and practices. This knowledge has helped shape educational policy and initiatives to improve existing conditions” (2003, p. 290). The study attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. What cost cutting strategies have school district superintendents employed to deal with the current school finance crisis?

2. Which strategies yielded most of the savings?3. What are the superintendents’ perceptions and concerns

regarding the future of school finance?

Research Design

A non-experimental descriptive-survey research study design was chosen in order to answer the research questions. The characteristics of descriptive research communicate the following


characteristics: (a) an instrument such as a survey/questionnaire is developed by the researcher, (b) most responses to the survey/questionnaire are quantitative or may be summarized in a quantitative manner, (c) the population sample selected for the study is usually large to ensure that generalizations are tied back to the population being studied (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2006).

In order to protect participants’ rights, each participant was sent a URL to the survey monkey and completed the survey anonymously. The limitations in this study consisted of a very low response rate as only nine responses were able to be utilized.

This study took place within the state of Texas. There are 1040 school districts in the state of Texas. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample of all superintendents in the state was selected. Surveys were administered using the online tool SurveyMonkey. Thirteen superintendents responded to the survey, but of these four had to be removed due to lack of responses, leaving a total of nine. All the school districts’ statuses based on information from the nine superintendents were Chapter 42. The School districts’ total student membership ranged from less than 1000 to 10,000. One school fell in the 6,001-10,000 range, one school fell in the 2,501 - 6,000 range, three schools were in the 1,001-2,500 range, and four schools were in the 1,000 or less range (Table 1).

Table 1

School District Student MembershipSchool District student

membership Frequency Percent

1000 or less 4 44.51001 – 2500 3 33.32501 – 6000 1 11.16001 - 10,000 1 11.1Total 9 100.0


Data Analysis

All of the nine respondents who had to eliminate professional positions were Chapter 42. Of these, four eliminated administrative positions, seven eliminated Teaching: Electives, six eliminated Teaching: Core Areas, one eliminated athletic coaches and instructional aides, and one reduced an Elementary Position and increased class size. The larger schools appeared more apt to eliminate administrative positions as three of the four eliminated were from school districts with more than 1000 students while the smaller schools were more prone to eliminate teaching positions (Table 2).

Seven out of nine respondents stated that they had eliminated Auxiliary/non-instructional positions. Of these seven respondents, four school districts eliminated Facilities & Maintenance: New Construction & custodial, electrical, one eliminated Human Resources, Accounting and Payroll, four eliminated Curriculum and Instruction, three eliminated Athletics and Fine Arts, none eliminated Counseling and Guidance, and one eliminated Transportation Director, Bus Monitors, Tax Office Clerk position(s).


Eight of the nine superintendents responded that they re-purposed and/or re-assigned personnel. Six of these eight repurposed Administrative: Central/District Based personnel, three repurposed Administrative: Campus Based personnel, six repurposed Teaching: Electives personnel, four repurposed Teaching: Core Areas personnel, and one repurposed Counselors or Librarian personnel.

Superintendents made the following changes respectively to Student/Teacher Ratios: 13:1 to 16:1; 15:1 to 19:1; Elementary: 14:1 to 18:1, Middle: 14:1 to 23:1, High School 16:1 to 20:1; 15:1 to 16:1; 16:1 to 18:1; Elementary 19:1 to 21:1, Secondary 15:1 to 18:1; 12.9:1 to 14.2:1; and 15:1 to 22:1.

Three of the nine superintendents who responded had to submit a request to the state for a waiver on its predetermined student/Teacher Ratio. Four of the nine districts had to resort to utilizing the district’s fund balance to make payroll and necessary expenditures. Three of the nine stated that based on the current funding, the district would not need to use the district’s fund balance in subsequent years.

The following programs or initiatives received less funding in order to meet the financial demands of operating their districts (Table 3):

Professional Positions (6100) by five school districtsAuxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100) by six school districtsStudent/Teacher Ratio (6100) by six school districtsCurriculum Development: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100) by three school districtsExtra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100) by four school districtsExtended Day Student Tutorials (6100) by six school districtsEnrichment Programs (6100) by six school districtsConsultant Contracted Services for Professional Learning (6200) by six school districts


Technology Purchases/leases (6200) by four school districtsSupplies and Materials (6300) by six school districtsBeautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds (6300) by five school districtsTravel for Educational Conferences (6400) by six school districtsLand, Building and Equipment (6600) by four school districts

The strategies were prioritized in order of the amount of savings and are listed below in order of most to least savings:

1. Professional Positions (6100)2. Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100)3. Student/Teacher Ratio (6100)4. Curriculum Development: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100)5. Extended Day Student Tutorials (6100)6. Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100)


7. Supplies and Materials (6300)8. Enrichment Programs (6100)9. Travel for Educational Conferences (6400)10.Consultant Contracted Services for Professional Learning

(6200)11.Technology Purchases/leases (6200)12. Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds

(6300) tied with Land, Building and Equipment (6600)

The cost cutting strategies that superintendents believed were most effective in meeting the financial demands of operating their districts and would thereby sustain the school district in subsequent years were Professional Positions (6100) and Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100) with five choices each. Student/Teacher Ratio (6100) was deemed the third most effective cost cutting strategy with three choices.

The least effective cost cutting strategies in meeting the financial demands of operating their district were Supplies and Materials (6300), Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100), and Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds (6300) respectively.

Student/Teacher Ratio (6100) was the cost cutting strategy that was thought to be not effective in meeting the academic demands of operating the district followed by Professional Positions (6100) and Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100)

Superintendents were asked about their perceptions of the future of school finance. Three were optimistic, three were actively involved with the school finance law suits and believed that the courts would rule in their favor, and three believed that the struggle with school finance would continue and the courts would not provide any relief.


Conclusions

Many cost cutting strategies were employed to deal with the current school finance crisis. All nine respondents had to eliminate professional positions. The larger schools appeared more apt to eliminate administrative positions while the smaller schools were more prone to eliminate teaching positions. The majority of the superintendents re-purposed and/or re-assigned personnel and all the superintendents increased the Student/Teacher Ratios.

Many programs or initiatives received less funding in order to meet the financial demands of operating their districts. The strategies were prioritized in order of the amount of savings, and the top three were Professional Positions (6100), Auxiliary/non-instructional Positions (6100), and Student/Teacher Ratio (6100). The least effective cost cutting strategies were Supplies and Materials (6300), Extra-Curricular: Extra Duty Pay/Stipends (6100), and Beautification & Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds (6300) respectively.

The perceptions superintendents held about the future of school finance was very varied. Three of the superintendents were optimistic for the future, three were actively involved with school finance law suits and believed that the courts would rule in their favor, and three believed that the struggle with school finance would continue and the courts would not provide any relief.

Finally, it is clear from the findings of this study that the funding reductions experienced by Texas school districts in recent years have forced superintendents to initiate significant cuts in programs and personnel that have direct relationships to instructional programs, staffing and student/teacher ratios as well as in a variety of other areas. The question that must arise is what impact will these cost cutting strategies have on the educational experience and performance of children enrolled in Texas school districts? Further research is needed to examine this issue as it relates to the impact of these funding policies and strategies on student performanc


References

Alexander, K. (2011, December 13, 2011). MALDEF sues Texas over school finance. American Statesman Staff. Retrieved from http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/maldef-sues-texas-over-school-finance-2030532.html

Benson, E., & Marks, B. (2005). Robin Hood and Texas school district borrowing costs. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2), 84-105.

Center for Public Education. (2008). A primer on K–12 school funding. Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/

Coalition to Invest in Texas Schools (CITS). (2004). School funding 101. Retrieved from http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/glossary.php

Cook, G. (2004). Robin Hood and the state's new role in education. American School Board Journal, 191(11), 8-12.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). Finance – Adequacy/Core Cost: Determining the cost of a basic or core education. Retrieved from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/PropertyTaxSession/OPI/core_

cost.pdf Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An

introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K.H. (2006). Methods in

educational research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).

(2013). Mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.maldef.org/about/mission/index.html

Moak C., & Associates (2008). A cost analysis for Texas public schools. Retrieved from http://www.moakcasey.com/articles/viewarticledoc.aspx/cost

analysis09.pdf?AID=734&DID=781

http://www.moakcasey.com/articles/viewarticledoc.aspx/cost

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/PropertyTaxSession/OPI/core_


New America Foundation. (2013, June 30). School finance: Federal, state, and local K-12 school finance overview. Retrieved on December 2011 from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance

No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Public law 107-110. Section 1301. Texas Association of School Administrators & Texas Association of

School Boards. (2008). Report on school district mandates: Cost drivers in public education. Austin, TX: Author.

The Education Trust. (2006). Funding gaps. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/dc/press-room/press-release/education-trust-releases-funding-gaps-2006

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973).Texas Education Code (TEC). (2007).

Texas Taxpayers and Research Association (TTARA) Research Foundation. (2010). An introduction to school finance in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.ttara.org/files/document/IntroToSchoolFinance. pdf

The Equity Center. (2012). Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.equitycenter.org/texas-taxpayer-a-student-fairness-coalition

Walter, F., & Sweetland, S. (2003). School finance reform: An unresolved issue across the nation. Education, 124(1), 143-150.

Ujifusa, A. (2013). State finance lawsuits still roiling landscape. Education Week, 32(18), 17-19.

1 jones done

Documents